[The Value Line Investment Survey has recently expanded its database of financial information on public firms from approximately 1,600 to over 4,000 companies to be more competitive in the financial database market. In addition, recent research (Philbrick and Ricks 1991) has shown that in determining earnings surprise, Value Line is a better source for actual EPS data. Since most research has been based on samples drawn from the COMPUSTAT database, increasing attention to the Value Line database leads one to question the effects of database choice on empirical research. One purpose of this study is to examine the differences in financial data between COMPUSTAT and Value Line along with the differences in the distribution of the size of firms between the two databases. Significant differences are found between COMPU-STAT and Value Line in the types of financial data reported for commonly used data items such as sales and total assets. In addition, the distribution of the size of firms in the databases has shifted over time. Prior to 1985 the bottom three quartiles of firms were significantly larger in Value Line. Beginning in 1985 the COMPUSTAT database had significantly larger firms across all quartiles. A second purpose is to demonstrate how the differences in the two databases can materially affect inferences about the population of firms. A study analyzing effective tax rates provides a good example because the use of the different databases produces very different results. This study extends prior research by examining which differences in the databases generate these different results. Much of the difference in the results is attributable to the different firms in the two databases. However, after controlling for common firms, the remaining significant differences can only be attributed to differences in the manner in which the financial accounting data are assimilated into the databases.]

[This study examines empirically three aspects of auditor materiality judgments: (1) their association with publicly available financial information, (2) whether materiality judgment consensus differs across Big Eight audit firms, and (3) whether judgment consensus is correlated with audit firm structure. The results suggest that nine publicly available financial measures explain a significant portion of the variability in auditor materiality judgments, thereby raising a question about potential information in auditors' interest-capitalization consistency exceptions. Although publicly available financial information was found to be significantly associated with materiality judgments in each Big Eight firm, the judgment consensus of consistency opinion decisions varied among individual Big Eight firms. Not only were there significant differences in judgment consensus among firms but also a significant positive association was found between audit judgment consensus and the degree of audit structure, thereby providing empirical evidence that audit structure may influence audit judgment.]

Abstract ABSTRACT: This study tests the reaction of security returns to anticipated and unanticipated inflation using SFAS 33 data to stratify firms cross-sectionally by inflation sensitivity. The cross-sectional stratification allows for the distributive effects of inflation and provides a unique means of assaying the accounting disclosures. The results confirm the significant negative impact of unanticipated inflation on security returns for the 1980-82 period. The market measure of inflation sensitivity, however, does not appear to be related in any way to accounting measures of inflation sensitivity based on SFAS 33 data.

Abstract Compares COMPUSTAT and Value Line databases in terms of financial data and size of firm distribution. COMPUSTAT and Value Line data assimilation policies; Effects of the differences in the two databases on population of firms' inferences; Importance of selecting databases and variables from those databases.

Abstract This study examines empirically three aspects of auditor materiality judgments: (1) their association with publicly available financial information, (2) whether materiality judgment consensus differs across Big Eight audit firms, and (3) whether judgment consensus is correlated with audit firm structure. The results suggest that nine publicly available financial measures explain a significant portion of the variability in auditor materiality judgments, thereby raising a question about potential information in auditors' interest-capitalization consistency exceptions. Although publicly available financial information was found to be significantly associated with materiality judgments in each Big Eight firm, the judgment consensus of consistency opinion decisions varied among individual Big Eight firms. Not only were there significant differences in judgment consensus among firms but also a significant positive association was found between audit judgment consensus and the degree of audit structure, thereby providing empirical evidence that audit structure may influence audit judgment.

Abstract Reviews the book "Cost Accounting: A Multidimensional Emphasis," by Ahmed Belkaoui.